SCARBOROUGH: George Zimmerman trial expands deep divide

[GandD 5,966]

Well, I guess in part because the trial wasn't about giving the benefit of the doubt to the young black man. I see this over and over and it seems like a lot of people have forgotten that it wasn't TM that was on trial, and you can take that two ways. The defendant here was Zimmerman and what you have to see is whether or not you can give him the benefit of the doubt. Why people opposed the trial isn't just because they think Treyvan had it coming. Some of us "opposed the trial" because we saw that there was no way you could convict a man based on the evidence we saw. For disclaimer I never actually "opposed the trial" myself. I think every so often its good to expose our legal and political system and put it up for debate. Before you go say this is some "conservative" view point, ask yourself do you honestely think that the vast majority of all the political analysts on CNN are conservative? Because if you paid attention, very few of them thought there would be a conviction. Are Alan Dershowitz and Mark Geragos conservatives? I don't think so. They know their stuff.

If you followed the trial objectively and listened to the legal experts, you really cannot have come to the conclusion that a conviction was coming. When I first heard about this case, I was of the opinion that Zimmerman was in the wrong too, but the more I heard the more I questioned what actual case the prosecution had. This is not to say he wasn't also partially to blame for this either. It just says there is no where in this that we can say beyond a reasonable doubt he broke any laws.

So since you can't rationally be mad at the verdict, you must be angry at the laws. But what law exactly? Do you think there should be a law forbidding neighborhood watch to follow someone they deem suspicious? Do you think someone should never be allowed to use a gun to shoot someone unless the other person has a gun too? Do you think someone should not be able to shoot someone in self defense until they are actually on the brink of death themselves? (I loved this part of the trial by the way- did we actually need someone to tell us George Zimmerman's injuries were not life threatening? Dude was very alive after the incident wasn't he, so doesn't that answer that question?)..or do you just think that people should not be allowed to carry guns?

Here is another question for you- Do you think that people should not be able to claim self defense when killing someone unless there is a witness that can absolutely 100% corraborate his story? I've heard this hypo brought up before-'How to get away with murder-make sure there are no witnesses and claim self defense" (as if this hasn't been done about a million times before already). Are you suggesting that we change our legal system to where we do NOT give a defendent the benefit of doubt and that unless he can prove his story he is guilty? Have you thought about what that would mean? So if a woman is attacked while walking home and she uses a firearm to defend her self while nobody is around and cannot prove she was attacked she goes to jail because she cannot prove she was attacked? Is that where you want to go?

Maybe that is what is angering people on the other side. Maybe juries don't give the benefit of the doubt in unprovable situations to black defendants- this is something suggested by some of those commentators on CNN- and that the anger is the inequity in the law. That I can understand, but that hasn't really come out, and if it is that, the focus should be on showing those cases that mirror this one to bring attention to that problem where it exists.

What if you stand your ground and don't kill anyone? 20 years:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/

[dalegg 143]

What if you stand your ground and don't kill anyone? 20 years:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-57434757-504083/fla-woman-marissa-alexander-gets-20-years-for-warning-shot-did-she-stand-her-ground/

Yeah, I heard about this one too. It sounds very bizarro to me on the face.

[GandD 5,966]

Yeah, I heard about this one too. It sounds very bizarro to me on the face.

Not saying she should be completely off the hook. But there's obviously a pretty big gap between the two.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Well, I guess in part because the trial wasn't about giving the benefit of the doubt to the young black man. I see this over and over and it seems like a lot of people have forgotten that it wasn't TM that was on trial, and you can take that two ways.

Right, the trial wasn't about Martin. Martin was the victim in the case and should thus not be portrayed as the guilty party which is precisely what the "kill at will" crowd was doing. That's not how humans behave.

Do you think that people should not be able to claim self defense when killing someone unless there is a witness that can absolutely 100% corraborate his story? I've heard this hypo brought up before-'How to get away with murder-make sure there are no witnesses and claim self defense" (as if this hasn't been done about a million times before already). Are you suggesting that we change our legal system to where we do NOT give a defendent the benefit of doubt and that unless he can prove his story he is guilty?

What do you mean change our legal system? That is what we did here in FL back in 2005 to arrive where we are today where all it takes to get away with murder is utter two words: "self defense". Once you speak those words after admittedly having taken a human life, the state now has to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt. That is insane.

Before the NRA sponsored legislation was adopted in Florida in 2005, the jury would have gotten this instruction to take into deliberations:

"The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force.

The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

That was the law until 2005 in Florida and it still is the law in many States of the Union. That is what the law ought to be lest we desire to turn into the kill at will society we have turned to in way too many juridictions already.

[dalegg 143]

Right, the trial wasn't about Martin. Martin was the victim in the case and should thus not be portrayed as the guilty party which is precisely what the "kill at will" crowd was doing. That's not how humans behave.

What do you mean change our legal system? That is what we did here in FL back in 2005 to arrive where we are today where all it takes to get away with murder is utter two words: "self defense". Once you speak those words after admittedly having taken a human life, the state now has to prove a negative beyond a reasonable doubt. That is insane.

Before the NRA sponsored legislation was adopted in Florida in 2005, the jury would have gotten this instruction to take into deliberations:

"The defendant cannot justify the use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm unless he used every reasonable means within his power and consistent with his own safety to avoid the danger before resorting to that force.

The fact that the defendant was wrongfully attacked cannot justify his use of force likely to cause death or great bodily harm if by retreating he could have avoided the need to use that force."

That was the law until 2005 in Florida and it still is the law in many States of the Union. That is what the law ought to be lest we desire to turn into the kill at will society we have turned to in way too many juridictions already.

Okay, so you do believe it should be changed- it should just be changed back. So who knows?- now that so many people are outraged maybe they do just that. But you can see that under the current law the right verdict was reached. How are you going to prove he didn't do everything reasonable before shooting though is what I want to know. He was in a fight, and if he was a bad fighter the situation was basically hopeless, and he could say "I tried to swing, but my punches just weren't landing"

[RGinWA 816]

Barack Obama admitted to smoking pot and doing cocaine.

He went on to Harvard and was the first black editor of the law review, elected Senator and president twice.

Trayvon Martin smoked pot and was shot dead at 17. But he had no future because who says so?

The entire argument that he was now disposable at 17 is idiotic.

[Harsh_77 718]

Some ... used the opportunity to gloat and continue their attacks against ... a dead teenager.

Indeed...

and who was making the claims week back?

Who was going to welcome GZ as state's expense.

Barack Obama admitted to smoking pot and doing cocaine.

He went on to Harvard and was the first black editor of the law review, elected Senator and president twice.

Trayvon Martin smoked pot and was shot dead at 17. But he had no future because who says so?

The entire argument that he was now disposable at 17 is idiotic.

By that comparision where should all white kids be by now?

[RGinWA 816]

By that comparision where should all white kids be by now?

In comparison I have no idea's what that even means and I thought about it for a few minutes.

[The Nature Boy 4,224]

and who was making the claims week back?

Who was going to welcome GZ as state's expense.

By that comparision where should all white kids be by now?

Selective memory disorder